We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The recording feature is quite good as it helps us to find out how things are working."
"The most valuable feature is the automation of test cases."
"The most valuable feature is the Object Model, where you can directly pull up the object as a global or a local."
"The most valuable feature is stability."
"The cost is the most important factor in this tool."
"The most valuable features are the object repository."
"This tool is really good. We don't need to write any code, but it writes the code itself, only record and play. And it is simple, and it is not heavy; I mean, it doesn't have a large footprint, and it works well for us."
"The solution is very scalable."
"The most valuable features are that it is user-friendly, it's easy to use and easy to teach to others."
"The interface is user-friendly."
"The solution offers excellent integration capabilities."
"It's a very simple solution to use."
"The solution scales well."
"It clearly makes it easy to test APIs based on the SOAP protocol. We are a logistics company, and we have lots of tracking calls coming in. We provide APIs for tracking services, and it makes sense for us to use SoapUI to test them thoroughly."
"The out-of-the-box support for the database is a valuable feature."
"Using SoapUI's automation suites to run all our test cases saved us a lot of time. Running 300 test cases takes about three to four days. When you automate all that, it takes only two to three hours."
"The product has shown no development over the past 10 or 15 years."
"The support from Micro Focus needs a lot of improvement."
"It would be improved by adding a drag-and-drop interface to help alleviate the coding."
"Easier connectivity and integration with SAP would be helpful."
"In the next release, I would like to see the connectivity improved to be less complex and more stable."
"In the next release, I would like to see integration with different cloud-based tools such as Azure."
"With Smart Bear products generally, you can have only one instance of the tool running on a machine."
"The pricing could be improved."
"We tried automation but it's not easy to integrate with the synching and some of the mission tools that we use for automated testing of APIs."
"The documentation needs to be improved because the interface is not easy for a first-time user."
"Stability has been an issue for us. It needs to be looked at and made a bit better."
"If the load and bare minimum could be defined, I would give this solution a higher rating."
"Occasionally, when you are saving, the solution can hang."
"There are no bugs or glitches, but a few features available only in the Pro version could be made available in the open-source version. Some of the features do not necessarily need to be only available to Pro users. The data generator would be really useful for the open-source version users."
"It is limited to scope and risk services only. It does have some support for JMS, but it is not out-of-the-box; you have to do some tweaks here and there."
"Grouping of the cases is not possible in SoapUI, to my knowledge. When working with critical cases or the, we were not able to group them properly. We can definitely create a suite and add them there, but within a whole suite, we have to identify them, which was not easy."
"The pricing is quite high compared to the competition."
"The cost of this solution is a little bit high and we are considering moving to another solution."
"When we compare in the market with other tools that have similar features, it may be a little bit extra, but the cost is ten times less."
"It is cheap, but if you take the enterprise license, it is valid for both software items."
"The licensing is very expensive, so often, we don't have enough VMs to run all of our tests."
"Its cost is a bit high. From the licensing perspective, I am using a concurrent license. It is not a seed license. It is something that I can use in our network. It can also be used by other users."
"The cost is not that bad."
"I think the number of users is also limited, considering how much we pay."
"My understanding is that the pricing is okay, however, that's taken care of by our procurement team. It's around $5,000 for three years."
"The Pro version can be expensive for some companies. There are no costs in addition to the licensing fees."
"We have team members who are working in shifts, and it is not possible for us to utilize a single license on a single piece of hardware so that multiple team members can use it. We have to take out multiple licenses for each team member."
Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT) is a powerful yet lightweight functional test automation solution, that supports a wide range of AUT technologies. Targeted to technical test automation engineers and developers/testers in Agile teams, Micro Focus UFT Pro (LeanFT) is fully embedded in standard IDEs and integrates naturally with the Dev and QA ecosystems.
Micro Focus UFT Developer is ranked 9th in Functional Testing Tools with 11 reviews while SoapUI Pro is ranked 10th in Functional Testing Tools with 9 reviews. Micro Focus UFT Developer is rated 7.0, while SoapUI Pro is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Micro Focus UFT Developer writes "Great features with good stability and an easy initial setup". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SoapUI Pro writes "Has out-of-the-box database support and can be easily used by non-technical staff ". Micro Focus UFT Developer is most compared with Micro Focus UFT One, Tricentis Tosca, Selenium HQ and Visual Studio Test Professional, whereas SoapUI Pro is most compared with ReadyAPI, Postman, Parasoft SOAtest, Apache JMeter and Ranorex Studio. See our Micro Focus UFT Developer vs. SoapUI Pro report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.